Distilling the shift in the wine vote

The tough talk of Somerville Police Chief Robert Bradley may have turned the tide against Question 1.

One day after a poll showed voters were prepared to overwhelmingly approve the ballot question, which would allow more food stores to sell wine, Bradley got the chance to play a starring role in the campaign that defeated it by 56 percent to 44 percent.

The turnaround in the most expensive ballot question in state history began Oct. 28, when strategists for the liquor industry tested their ads and the ads of the supermarket industry on two focus groups of undecided voters. They discovered the voters were skeptical of both multimillion-dollar ad campaigns.

At the end of both sessions, the strategists showed a snippet of tape filmed earlier that day of Bradley talking from the gut about his concerns about Question 1. The reaction from the voters was instantaneous.

"They said put him on the air. They understood what he was saying and said he was believable," said Joseph T. Baerlein, president of Rasky Baerlein Strategic Communications, which ran the Vote No campaign. "Chief Bradley cut through the clutter."

Baerlein's group filmed Bradley in uniform in his office the next day, edited the comments until early the next morning, and then rushed the 30-second commercial onto the air that night.

The commercial was powerful because Bradley didn't mince words or qualify his statements. In fact, he seemed almost angry. He warned voters that Question 1 would dramatically increase the number of liquor licenses in Somerville.

"It's not just about wine in supermarkets," he said.

"It's about convenience stores. It's about gas station minimarts being able to sell alcohol. That's what we're talking about here. Don't be fooled by Question 1."

Over the next eight days, the Bradley ad was seen an estimated 11 to 15 times by the women voters the campaign was targeting. Men, especially men under 40, were firmly in support of allowing more food stores to sell wine, Baerlein said.

Polls have indicated that the commercial had a dramatic impact.

A Globe-CBS4 poll on Oct. 27 showed Question 1 passing by 19 percentage points, but that lead quickly evaporated as the ad shifted the political debate away from shopping convenience, where the supermarkets had an advantage, and cast Question 1 as a radical change in state liquor laws that could have ominous implications for public safety, drunk driving, and underage drinking.

Bradley's ad helped derail Question 1 almost everywhere except his hometown, which approved the measure by a 53-to-47 margin.

Bradley did not return telephone calls yesterday.

Christopher Flynn -- president of the Massachusetts Food Association, which represents the state's supermarket industry -- said a police officer in uniform at his desk talking frankly to voters sent a powerful message, so powerful that Flynn's group filed a complaint against Bradley with the State Ethics Commission.

"In the end, the message scared people," Flynn said. "They didn't run a campaign against wine at grocery stores. They ran a campaign against alcohol at convenience stores, gas stations, and minimarts."

Supermarket officials said they wanted to craft the proposed law to exclude convenience stores, gas stations, and minimarts, but concluded that they couldn't because ballot questions have to apply equally to all communities.

"We may have made a strategic mistake there," Flynn said.

Flynn said his group had convinced Mothers Against Drunk Driving, the Massachusetts Municipal Association, and several chiefs of police associations to remain neutral, but neutrality didn't translate into public support.

By contrast, liquor stores solicited the support of more than 40 police chiefs, dozens of officials, the top two officials at the Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission, and Ron Bersani, who sought tougher drunk-driving legislation after his granddaughter, Melanie, was killed by a drunk driver.

With Bradley and Bersani hammering away at Question 1 in radio and television ads in the closing days of the campaign, the supermarkets had no one to counter with.

Kim Hinden, the former registrar of motor vehicles, appeared in supermarket ads.

Perceptions of Hinden's objectivity, however, were undermined by her role as a paid spokeswoman for the group.

At a press conference in Newton the day before the election, the supermarkets trotted out Michele Gillen of Needham as a mother of two who was concerned about ads being run by the liquor industry.

What Hinden, Gillen, and other campaign officials who were at the press conference did not disclose was that Gillen was Hinden's sister.

"I didn't want her to do it," Hinden said yesterday. "She felt very strongly about it."

The supermarkets also did not have the personal connection with voters that the package-store owners did.

These package-store owners were out in force at the polls on Election Day, reminding neighbors that their business was on the line.

"I saw a no vote as a vote for the little guy," said Emily Saffer, a Brookline voter.

Bruce Mohl can be reached at mohl@globe.com.